Standing Committee F

[Mr. George Stevenson in the Chair]

Hunting Bill

Alun Michael: I beg to move,
That—
(1) the Committee recommends that the programme order [16th December] in relation to the Hunting Bill be amended as follows
In paragraph (2) of the order, for '13th February' substitute '27th February';
(2) the Order of the Committee [7th January] be amended as follows—
In paragraph (1), at the end, add '(except that the Committee shall not meet on Tuesday 18th February or Thursday 20th February)';
In paragraph (3), leave out '13th' and insert '27th'.
 During previous sittings, hon. Members made it clear that they wanted further time to consider all aspects of the Bill. We discussed that in the Programming Sub-Committee following the adjournment of our previous sitting and it was felt sensible to make provision for the Committee to sit on Tuesday and Thursday following the short recess. Clearly, no one wants to encourage the Committee to sit beyond the necessary time to engage fully with all the issues that hon. Members wish to raise, but the proposal allows a considerable degree of flexibility to the Committee that I believe is welcomed by all those involved.

James Gray: We very much welcome the Government's understanding. A great deal in the Bill remains to be discussed and we would not be able to do that today and on Thursday. We welcome the Minister's proposed two extra days in Committee and look forward to making good use of them.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for providing additional time and I hope that we shall focus on using the extra time efficiently. Some important debates remain and I am sure that with your guidance, Mr. Stevenson, we shall avoid unnecessary repetition of our debates. I look forward to using the extra available time.

Paddy Tipping: I welcome the motion and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to confirm my recollection that with the two extra days, the Committee stage will be substantially longer than any previous hunting Bill.
Alun Michael: I believe that my hon. Friend is correct
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 - HUNTING: ASSISTANCE

James Gray: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in
clause 4, page 2, line 18, leave out 'knowingly' and insert 'expressly'.
 The amendment may sound a little on the dry side to Labour Members but Opposition Members believe that it is important. It would change the offence of knowingly permitting land to be used for hunting to expressly permitting land to be used for hunting. The amendment is important because it would protect landowners from unjustified prosecution. For an offence to be committed, express permission would have to have been given by the landowner to the people hunting. The usual common law rules on secondary liability would still apply. 
 Under clause 4 as drafted, it would be a criminal offence for a person knowingly to permit his land to be entered or used in the course or commission of an offence under clause 1. However, there are well-established common law rules concerning secondary parties and it is draconian to go beyond them. Like all trainee barristers, I can do no better than to quote Archbold's ''Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice''; a work that is, I am sure, familiar to many Committee members, particular the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). Chapter 18 states: 
''Someone who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an offence by someone else is guilty of 'the like offence'.
The distinction between joint principals and principals/secondary parties can be hard to draw.
The words 'aid, abet, counsel or procure' should be given their ordinary meaning if possible.''
 I am delighted to hear that they should be given their ordinary meaning if possible. To the lawyers, that is apparently an extraordinarily important point. Archbold goes on to make the point that 
''Participation by helping in a crime can take many forms, including keeping watch (tacit) encouragement, providing the means (dogs, the use of land, vehicles etc.) It is important to appreciate that voluntary presence at the scene of a crime is a fact from which guilt can (but not necessarily) be inferred.
The mental element is this: an intention to help someone else, realising that . . . that other person might commit the crime.'' 
 The person who may be prosecuted has to intend to help someone else to carry out the crime.
 Clause 4 spreads the net wider than the usual principles since it might involve people who—entirely unintentionally—may be allowing the crime to occur on their land. We want to know the purpose of creating the crime in clause 4, and what it is about hunting that justifies a wider net being cast in this case than is normal in the law. That is particularly true because the supporters of clause 4 have apparently decided that the offence is not so serious as to justify imprisonment. Therefore, something that is a less serious offence in the broad scheme of things nonetheless involves people who are unintentionally involved in the offence being criminally liable. 
 It is not clear what one has to know for the offence to be committed. Let us suppose that a landowner thinks that he is letting people use his land for lawful activities, but it turns out that the activities are 
 unlawful. We must bear in mind that we are talking about whether people are registered for a particular area or mammal. It might be quite difficult for the landowner to know whether the hunt in question is carrying out a crime on his land. 
 Clause 4 may make a landowner a criminal for permitting another person to use his land even if, unbeknownst to him, that other person intends to hunt in contravention of the legislation. That seems draconian and quite unnecessary. It goes against the principle of the multi-option Bill that we considered in 2001, which contained the words ''knowingly permits.'' It was clear in that Bill that an owner or occupier would be criminally liable for merely permitting parties on to his land, but only if he knew what they were doing. All criminal offences ought to be clearly defined, and it is not at all clear in the Bill what is meant by ''knowingly''. 
 Our amendment proposes that the word ''knowingly'' should be removed and replaced by the word ''expressly''. It is not a question of the landowner merely knowing that people are on his land; he must have expressly given them permission to break the law. The amendment is important in the context of English law, and uncontroversial. I hope that both sides will give it a fair wind.

Lembit Öpik: I should rather respond to what the Minister says. Regardless of where one stands on the issue of hunting, it seems reasonable to ensure that innocent people acting in good faith and in the spirit of the law are not dragged to court on the basis of their crumbling in the face of intimidation by unscrupulous individuals. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say before I say anything else.
Alun Michael: I resist the amendment because the Bill provides the necessary clarity. What are people expected to do in such circumstances? Under the Bill, a person commits an offence if he knowingly permits land that belongs to him to be entered or used in the course of the commission of an offence under section 1. The amendment would change the wording from knowingly permitting to expressly permitting. I recall similar discussions on this point the last time that a hunting Bill was considered in Committee.
 Consent or permission can be given in a number of ways. Someone may allow somebody to do things on their land and even indicate that consent, although not expressly given, has been implicitly given. The drafting of the Bill is correct, because it makes it clear that a person cannot evade the intentions of the Bill in that way and it avoids any possible grounds for confusion. If a person or a body knowingly allows their land to be entered or used in the course of the commission of an offence under clause 1, they would be committing an offence. That seems clear and reasonable.

James Gray: Would the offence be clear and reasonable if the landowner suspected that an offence would be committed, but did not know that one would be?

Alun Michael: It would depend on what the landowner did. If the landowner knew full well that an offence would take place and failed to take steps to prevent it or to make it clear that he was not giving permission, he could be committing an offence. Clause 4 makes it clear that a person will commit an offence when they permit their land or dogs to be used for what they know will be unlawful hunting. Knowledge is the essence of the clause.

James Gray: That is precisely my point. If the landowner does not know that an offence will be committed but merely suspects that one will be, the clause will not cover that. The use of the word ''knowingly'' indicates that the landowner knows for sure that an offence will be carried out. Surely the word ''suspects'' is better. That is why ''expressly'' is a better word in this context.

Alun Michael: I am not sure that it does have that effect. The explicit offence of assisting someone else to commit a crime is much clearer than relying on the common law offences of aiding and abetting. If somebody suspects that an event will take place on their land and they do not check, that rapidly becomes ''knowing''. If a person were aware that an offence would take place, it would be their responsibility to make sure that it did not.

Edward Garnier: I implicitly respect the advice that the Minister is receiving from his officials, but he is moving the criminal law a long way forward. There is no duty to prevent crime; there is not even a duty to report crime. If the Minister is suggesting that ''knowingly'' requires a person to do something positive to prevent crime, he is moving the criminal law vastly forward. He must be clear about what he is saying. Otherwise, he will create criminal law on the hoof.

Alun Michael: The hon. and learned Gentleman is misinterpreting what I said, which is not unusual.

Edward Garnier: Let us not have an argument. Let us not be rude. I wish the Minister would try to assist the Committee instead of being pompous.

Alun Michael: It is not possible—[Interruption.] The hon. and learned Gentleman should calm down. [Interruption.]

George Stevenson: Order. We are 15 minutes into the Committee. Can we all cool down and choose our language a little more carefully?

Alun Michael: It is not possible to commit a clause 4 offence unwittingly. The hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to suggest that a person could accidentally commit an offence, but that is not possible under the clause as drafted. The landowner must know that the hunter intends to hunt unlawfully. If the landowner believes that hunting will be lawful, he or she is not committing an offence under the clause if the hunting is carried out unlawfully.
 There is a duty not to commit a crime oneself. That is the duty that the landowner is obliged to fulfil; the landowner must make sure that he does not commit the clause 4 offence.

Peter Luff: I hope that the Minister can give me some comfort on this point.
 What happens if someone is intimidated by, for example, illegal hare coursers into giving permission? Will he then be guilty of an offence?

Alun Michael: One thing that is clear is that if people were undertaking intimidation, they would be committing an offence. I would expect that the intimidated person would take legal advice on their position. I am not going to give free advice at the moment because legal advice that I gave would not be worth the paper that it was written on. But clearly, in that situation, the person undertaking the intimidation would be committing the offence. I should think that the focus of police activity, in those circumstances, would be on the intimidator.

Peter Luff: Such situations are a little grey when it comes to practice. Will the Minister focus on whether the police might, in that situation, pursue a prosecution under the clause? There might be a real risk of that.

Alun Michael: I do not think that there would be. Clearly, in such circumstances, the first obligation on the police would be to discover what had been going on. The offences of intimidation by illegal hare coursers that have taken place so far are a particularly unpleasant blight on the countryside. They should be tackled.

James Gray: In the spirit of co-operation that you have enjoined upon us, Mr. Stevenson, perhaps I can help the Minister out of his hole. The answer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) is that the clause refers to someone who ''knowingly permits land'' to be used. Presumably, if intimidation were used to gain access to that land, the landowner would not be knowingly permitting it. It is the word ''permits'' that is important. If I have no option, I am not permitting something. Is that not correct?

Alun Michael: I think that the hon. Gentleman is correct. That is why I said that everything would depend on the circumstances and that people might be wise to obtain legal advice. Intimidation could amount to duress, which is what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

Andrew George: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: In one moment. Duress may amount to a defence, depending on the facts of the case. If someone said, ''Oh, they shouted at me a bit'' and used that as an excuse for giving permission for something that was an offence, that would not be a successful defence. That is why I hesitate to give an absolute answer to the question that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire asked. However, if there were intimidation that caused someone to feel significantly under duress, I should think that the police would focus very much on the intimidation. It would all depend on the circumstances of the case.

Andrew George: Does not the Minister accept that intimidation can happen on the basis of reputation rather than because of actual intimidation? A landowner might feel intimidated even though he had not been, and think that he needs to be seen to give permission.
 I should like clarification on one point. Where the clause says ''land which belongs'' to someone, where does that leave tenant farmers who make separate decisions on behalf of landowners?

Alun Michael: On the latter point, I believe that I am right in saying that that refers to the occupier of the land, meaning the tenant. Clause 45(3) says:
''For the purposes of this Act land belongs to a person if he—
(a) owns an interest in it,
(b) manages or controls it, or
(c) occupies it.''
 That confirms my answer to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). 
 Intimidation would have to be very strong to amount to duress, so there would have to be an element of testing the extent to which it had taken place. On the other hand, I am aware that intimidation occurs, as I have mentioned. We should like to see greater clarity on what can and cannot be done to make it more difficult for people to intimidate householders, farmers and landowners. The problem has proved difficult to tackle for a number of years, which is why I made great play in an earlier sitting of the fact that the Bill will, among other things, greatly clarify the law and assist the police in eradicating a particular nuisance in many parts of the countryside. I understand the points that hon. Members are making, but they are only looking at one side of the equation. 
 One also must look at the other side of the equation, which concerns illegal activities being tolerated or positively encouraged. We must make sure that the law is enforceable. The clause gets the balance right and I commend it to the Committee.

Lembit Öpik: I am very concerned about the matter because although the word ''expressly'' might make the law more difficult to enforce, it would also make it fairer on tenants and landowners. If a landowner knew that he would be punished for having knowledge, he could be taken to court for a sin of omission. In other words, he could be taken to court for not preventing something from occurring rather than for actively violating the Bill.
 The Minister's assessment that there must be heavy duress would relate to possible court cases. He said that duress would have to be severe, but I am concerned that landowners will be required to police the Bill, which is not fair. One can imagine a farmer and his family out in the sticks seeing a car with a few lads and a couple of dogs in it. He goes over and the lads say, ''We are just going to go rabbiting. What are you going to do about it?'' The farmer thinks about the property and the fact that his wife is often alone in the house. He knows that there has been a spate of break-ins and damage to property in the area. Although he is sure that the lads will go hare coursing, he concludes that it is not worth the candle of exposing his family to the danger and therefore lets the matter pass. We know that such situations happen and I do not see why the Bill will make them less likely. 
 If clause 4 is not amended, more individuals will end up technically in breach of the law. Swapping 
 ''expressly'' for ''knowingly'' will make it more difficult to enforce the clause, but that is simply because it will take the pressure of landowners. 
 I have had two other thoughts. First, the occupier of the land may indeed be responsible for enforcing clause 4, but I can imagine circumstances in which a tenant sees their landlord conducting those activities. The landlord may gamble that the tenant will not do much about it because of the consequences for the tenancy. The word ''expressly'' would be more useful in that situation than ''knowingly''. 
 Secondly, in our efforts to get the Bill right, we must always bear in mind the need to ensure that natural justice is not violated. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his position, which, although I am not a lawyer, gives me the impression that the onus for enforcement is shifting from the arm of the law to the arm of the individual who happens to own the land.

Edward Garnier: If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman is entirely right. One does not have to be a lawyer to spot unfairness. Indeed, it often helps if one is not a lawyer. If ever I have seen unfairness in a piece of legislation, it is in this one. If ever I have heard an inadequate explanation for unfairness, it was the one from the Minister.
 We should be very careful about what we are doing. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) fully appreciates the needs and difficulties of people who live in remote rural areas and come under the clause 45(3) definitions. Many people occupy land but do not have the same say over what happens on it as someone who manages, controls or owns it. For example, a landlord's agent may apply pressure on an impecunious farming tenant to allow or not allow a particular activity. It is unrealistic for the Minister and those who drafted the Bill not to bear in mind those everyday facts of life in the rural parts of our country.

Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is not realistic to think that such individuals would be able to phone up and ask for legal advice on how they might get off the hook in a court of law?

Edward Garnier: That is no more realistic than expecting someone to ring up the registrar and put in an application for a licence to hold a field trial, go mink hunting or participate in any of the activities that we have discussed. The Bill is full of unrealities. It is full of assertions and requirements that place a burden on the individual that should be placed on the state, if the Bill is to become part of criminal law.
 We can see precisely what will happen if clause 4 is not amended. As the hon. Gentleman said, the burden of policing this aspect of the Bill will fall upon the individual occupier of the land, because there are not enough policemen in rural areas to control such behaviour. We have heard the Minister say on many occasions that the good thing about banning hare coursing is that the lives of policemen will become much easier, in that they will be able to stop people coursing. That is pie in the sky. We all know that policemen are thin on the ground in rural areas. As I 
 said at the beginning of our deliberations, there are often only two or three policemen covering an area of several hundred square miles in my constituency on Friday or Saturday evenings. 
 The so-called animal welfare groups—there are many more individuals who belong to such groups than there are policemen—will be whizzing around checking up on occupiers of land, whether tenants, owners or managers, to ensure that no one is carrying out ''hunting'' that does not comply with the law. If someone is doing so, they will be on the wrong end of a private prosecution. 
 This is perhaps the most unattractive part of the entire Bill. It wholly fails to consider what goes on outside urban Labour land or to understand that people are perfectly willing to obey an Act of Parliament that has public consent. Last autumn, 400,000-plus people came to London to demonstrate their refusal to be bullied in such a manner. Why should they be bullied to carry out the duties of the state, the police or other people when they are trying to earn a very miserable crust in extremely difficult circumstances? The Bill is reprehensible, and the clause even more so. 
 Before the Minister accuses me of being pompous, perhaps he would like to meet some of those people. [Interruption.] Perhaps he should meet the people who may face such prosecutions. It is all very well for him to sit in his ministerial office or to look at the countryside through the back window of his limousine. There is much more happening out there than the Minister realises, and it is high time that he went out and had a look.

Rob Marris: I urge hon. Members to reject the amendment and stick with the wording of the Bill. The mens rea of the offence would change from basic to specific intent, which is a much higher hurdle. In lay terms, ''knowingly'' means that the individual turns a blind eye, whereas ''expressly'' would require active collaboration and participation. The question asked by Opposition Members about the tenant farmer and the owner or landlord's agent is a red herring, because a tenant would not knowingly permit an activity to take place, whereas a landlord or their agent may do so.

Hugo Swire: I should like the hon. Gentleman to reverse a bit and repeat that because it is one of the most ridiculous things that I have ever heard. What on earth has what the tenant does on a day-to-day basis got to do with the ultimate landlord, who may not even live in the country?

Rob Marris: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is listening to his hon. Friends. The example given was that of a tenant who was under pressure from a landlord's agent to allow an illegal activity—unregistered hunting—to take place on the land. I was saying that the tenant would have a defence and would not be the person permitting the activity to take place.

Hugo Swire: That is not what the hon. Gentleman said.

Rob Marris: If I did not say that, I apologise to hon. Members. I will check the record later. Is that now clear to the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Swire indicated assent.

Lembit Öpik: It is important that there is clarification. The Minister may have to respond to this. How does the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West interpret clause 45(3)? It states:
''For the purposes of this Act land belongs to a person if he—
(a) owns an interest in it,
(b) manages or controls it, or
(c) occupies it.''
 Surely under that clause, which the Minister cited, there is ample opportunity for a court to have a field day about the relationship between the tenant and the owner of the land.

Rob Marris: I like the hon. Gentleman's turn of phrase and the idea of the court having a field day. I agree. Members have to realise that very often land in the United Kingdom is not solely under the control or ownership of one person. For example, I have a right of way over land that does not belong to me; I have the right of passage over that land. Land has a multi-layered ownership, occupation, control and usage in our country. That situation is true of a tenant farmer and the ultimate owner of the land; both have an interest in the land.
 The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire talked about the horrors of individuals being liable for sins of omission. There are many cases in the law of England and Wales where individuals are liable for sins of omission; for example, the failure to report a road traffic accident involving injury. If a bar worker serves someone who is under-age, the pub landlord, who holds the licence, is responsible. That is an offence of strict liability. The pub landlord might not even be on the premises; it might be his or her night off. However, they are still strictly liable for that failure. I stand ready to be corrected, but my recollection is that an owner or occupier of land cannot simply allow people to dump chemicals on it. They cannot say, ''Oh, I didn't expressly give permission for the dumping of chemicals.'' They cannot simply turn a blind eye to the dumping of chemicals; that is a sin of omission for which they will be criminally liable.

Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the first two examples, it is not realistic to suppose that the person in question would be intimidated? For example, a member of staff would not intimidate a pub landlord into allowing him or her to serve under-age people. Establishing whether chemical dumping had taken place would be an open-and-shut case. In the case of hunting, the difficulty is that there may be active intimidation of a person, who may end up being prosecuted because they are simply unable to prove that the duress and fear of reprisals against their family were so great that they decided to let it go.

Rob Marris: I quote the hon. Gentleman's word back at him; duress. My recollection—again I stand ready to be corrected—is that in most criminal offences, apart from murder, the defence of duress is available. In the example that the hon. Gentleman
 gave, the tenant or owner of the land could use the defence of duress and would almost certainly succeed.

Alun Michael: On other occasions, we have heard a great deal about how the permission of landowners or occupiers is important and the clause reinforces that. On intimidation, it is possible to overstate the theoretical examples that might arise. Within the legal system, I have seen examples of intimidation being dealt with extremely sensitively by the police and the courts. Common-sense judgments have been made about whether an individual was acting as a free agent and the degree to which intimidation changed the equation. I encourage hon. Members not to overstate the danger to an individual.
 The clause says: 
''A person commits an offence if he knowingly permits land which belongs to him to be entered or used in the course of the commission of an offence under section 1.''
 As we clarified earlier, the belonging is also defined in terms of tenancy, so there is no doubt about what is being dealt with. The clause adds: 
''A person commits an offence if he knowingly permits a dog which belongs to him to be used in the course of the commission of an offence under section 1.''
 The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) was guilty in his most recent contribution of serious exaggeration when he said how onerous the clause was. I do not believe that it is. The word ''expressly'' would allow landowners to turn a blind eye to any activities and implicitly to consent to unlawful hunting, which would create a loophole in the Bill. 
 Clause 4 contains two clear safeguards—two hurdles that must be surmounted if a prosecution is to be successful. First, the landowner must permit the hunting. Secondly, he must know that the hunting would be unlawful. Clearly, individuals remain under a duty to obey the law. The fact that it will become an offence knowingly to permit land to be used for unlawful hunting will in many cases strengthen the landowner's reasons and his ability to refuse to assist in the commission of a crime. Therefore, the clause gets the balance right, is not onerous and creates good law that will encourage the Bill to be obeyed.

James Gray: I fear that this matter may sound technical and dull to the more red-blooded members of the Committee, but it seems extraordinarily important to us.
 As the Minister correctly said, the word ''permission'' has often been used in our discussions in the past few weeks. We stick by that and point out that someone ''knowingly permits land'' is different from someone ''expressly'' permitting land. We want the express permission of a landowner to be an obvious offence. If a landowner said, ''I know that you are breaking the law, I know that you are going to commit an offence and I expressly give you permission to do so. That's quite all right be me'', that would be unacceptable in any area of the law and unacceptable to society. 
 The definition of the word ''knowingly'' seems to be curiously obscure, particularly when the offence may be as complicated as it is here. For example, if a bird shoot accidentally puts up a hare on a landowner's land and it is shot, the person who shoots the hare will have committed an offence and so will the landowner who allowed the shoot on his land. The same applies in a variety of similar circumstances. 
 Let us suppose that a mammal was inadvertently hunted with dogs in the wrong area, that the area was one field, which is possible, or that the hare or fox was killed in the next-door field by mistake. Would that be knowingly? It would open a Pandora's box of legal cases. The word ''expressly'' would make it much clearer that the landowner had intentionally and expressly permitted the offence to occur. 
 Intimidation would form a defence. None the less, particularly in the context of illegal hare coursing, that happens all the time. Now that the Bill gives illegal hare coursers the incentive to carry guns, the situation becomes even worse and we should be concerned about it.

Alun Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify one point, because I may have misunderstood him? He seemed to be saying that something would follow if somebody shot a hare by accident. That would not be hunting, so in that event nobody is committing an offence—neither the shooter nor the landowner. [Interruption.] I answered the question on the basis of my understanding of what the hon. Gentleman said.

James Gray: My argument related to schedule 1, ''Exempt Hunting''. As we discovered last week, if ground game was put up by more than two dogs during an ordinary pheasant shoot and was shot during the day's activities, that would be an offence under the Bill because it would not be exempt hunting. The dogs taking part in the shoot would need to be registered before they could put up ground game.

Alun Michael: Can the hon. Gentleman explain what offence he thinks is being committed in those circumstances, because I do not see it?

James Gray: That was precisely what I was doing. Let me take the Minister back for a moment. He will remember that under the Bill there are two options: either one hunts through exempt hunting—rats, rabbits and a number of other categories—or one is required to register. That is the fundamental principle behind the Bill. As we discovered last week, if on an ordinary day's game shooting for birds, the dogs accidentally put up a hare, which is then shot by the guns, as would normally happen in a day's shooting, and the dogs were not registered for the purpose of flushing hares or ground game out, that would be an offence because it would not be exempt hunting. [Interruption.] The Minister keeps jumping up and down and asking questions. Perhaps he will allow me to answer the question.
 As we discovered last week, if dogs were used to flush out ground game to a waiting gun, which is what would happen in the circumstances that I described, and they were not registered for hunting, it would not 
 be exempt hunting, and the guns would be guilty of an offence under the Bill. Does the Minister want to clarify something?

Alun Michael: No, I want to point out that the hon. Gentleman seems to have misunderstood the situation entirely. To commit an offence, one must have the intention to hunt. If the hunter does not intend to pursue a wild mammal, it is not hunting. The hon. Gentleman has clearly misunderstood last week's conversations.

James Gray: The Minister is getting himself in a muddle over the word—

Alun Michael: No, I am not.

James Gray: It is no good saying from a sedentary position ''No, I am not.'' Allow me to explain why I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is in a muddle. He now defends what he is saying by talking of intent. He says that the offence under the Bill—he said it a couple of weeks ago quite plainly—is the intent to kill. [Interruption.] I am not going to enter into an across-the-Room dialogue with the Minister. He said plainly a moment ago, that if there was no intention to kill the hare—he used the word ''intention'' several times—that would not be an offence. He did the same a couple of weeks back, when we were talking about a blank day's hunting. We asked whether, if no foxes were found, it would be an offence, because no wild mammal had been pursued and therefore no offence had been committed. The Minister said plainly then several times, ''No, you would be guilty of an offence if you went out for a blank day's hunting in which no fox was found. You would be guilty of an offence because you plainly had the intention of pursuing a fox.'' The Minister said that several times after that.
 Last week, from a sedentary position, he seemed to be wavering on that point, because the word ''intention'' is extraordinarily important and one on which previous hunting Bills have foundered. Today, he said again that if dogs accidentally put up a hare in the course of a day's game shooting, which is then shot by the guns, the shooter would not be guilty because he had no intention of hunting with dogs.

Alun Michael: It is a process of education. The only difference between the different things that I say is that I am correcting different misapprehensions on the part of the hon. Gentleman. He keeps referring, inaccurately, to intentional hunting. There is no such thing as unintentional hunting. Intention cannot be separate from the hunting. Hunting is an intentional activity. That is where the hon. Gentleman keeps getting muddled and confusing himself. I hope that I have made it clear this time.

James Gray: When we are talking about technical and detailed matters of the law it is not necessary for the Minister to go into his condescending, patronising mode. It should be possible to have a series of sensible discussions about the use of the word—[Interruption.] The Minister says ''Oh Jesus!'' from a sedentary position. I am not sure that using a profanity—

George Stevenson: Order. I suspect two things. First, we are drifting into a debate that we had a few days ago. The point about the effect that the Bill may have
 on landowners, tenants or whoever it may be has been well made. We should now move to the wording of the amendment.

James Gray: I entirely accept your point, Mr. Stevenson. It is disappointing that the Minister deviated in the way that he did.

Edward Garnier: Is it not incumbent on us to produce clear law? We are extending the criminal law in quite a draconian way. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are doing that, we should make the Bill clear so that Mr. and Mrs. Ordinary in the countryside know when they are breaking the law and when they are not? The Minister's interventions have not helped one iota.

James Gray: My hon. and learned Friend makes an extremely good point. The Minister keeps saying that the Bill must stand the test of time and be clear and non-controversial. We are highlighting what we believe to be a legal loophole in the Bill that could result in Mr. and Mrs. Ordinary in the countryside landing up in court because they did not know that they had committed an offence.
 The Minister said that the amendment would make the clause a blind-eye clause, introducing a loophole to give the landowner the opportunity to turn a blind eye to an offence occurring on his land. I put that the other way round. The offence under the Bill is plain: the person committing the criminal offence is the person hunting with dogs without registration, who will go to court and suffer the penalties of the law. However, someone might be inadvertently involved in a court case, although they had not expressly given permission for hunting and could not reasonably be said to have committed an offence. It is important to replace ''knowingly'' with ''expressly''. If a landowner has given express permission for a crime to be carried out on his land, then of course he is guilty of an offence. If he has not given that express permission, however, it would be reasonable for him to use that as a defence in court. 
 The omission that we have highlighted is important, if technical. The amendment certainly does not justify profanities from the Minister. As a result of those profanities and because we believe that the amendment is important, we shall press it to a Division. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 19.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Hunting: defence

Andrew George: I beg to move amendment No. 262, in
clause 5, page 2, line 24, leave out '1' and insert '4'. 
I shall be brief, because many of the points that I wish to make under this amendment have been rehearsed in our arguments on clause 4. The amendment would close a loophole and provide, in my view, an important defence for landowners and dog owners who knowingly permit their land or dog to be used in what they reasonably believed at the time to be registered hunting. It also bolsters an amendment, which I will be moving later, to clause 7, but I shall not pre-empt that debate. Without repeating the arguments put forward in the previous debate, it is important that landowners are not unfairly caught by the legislation. 
 It is also important that there is not a loophole for hunters. The amendment would remove the defence for hunters charged with an offence under clause 1 that they reasonably believed that their hunting was registered or exempt. 
 If clause 5 is not amended, there will be a loophole, which could be exploited by hunters who knew that they were either duping or misleading landowners into believing that they were registered or exempt. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment and the need adequately to defend landowners.

Hugo Swire: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his brevity in introducing the amendment. I do not necessarily agree with his objective or the way in which he seeks to achieve it. The amendment will not do what he thinks. I welcome his move towards believing that landowners should be protected from an inadvertent violation of the Bill. A few weeks ago, we had a discussion in which he seemed to be trying to achieve a slightly different objective.

Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman says that I am moving towards his position. If he looks at the Second Reading debate, he will see that I was the only person who drew attention to, for example, the potential pitfall of clause 7 and the fact that landowners would be inadvertently and unfairly caught by the Bill. I am not therefore moving to that position. Will he accept that I have consistently maintained my position?

Hugo Swire: I stand corrected and shall go back to Hansard. However, the hon. Gentleman and I have previously discussed the matter in Committee, where we did not necessarily agree. I shall take his point in good faith, but the amendment will not help the landowner. In a short space of time, I shall describe the ways in which it could be improved. It would delete the defence for persons accused of an offence under section 1 that they believed that their hunting was registered or exempt. Conservative Members do not like that.
 The amendment would create a new defence for persons accused under section 4 of knowingly permitting one's land to be entered or used in connection with an offence under section 1, or knowingly permitting one's dog to be used for the same purposes. The accused could claim that they reasonably believed that their hunting was registered or exempt. The Bill would be fairer to the landowner if clause 5 referred to sections 1 and 4. 
 The creation of a new defence for persons accused of an offence under section 4, namely permitting one's land to be entered or used in connection with an offence under section 1 or knowingly permitting one's dog to be used for the same purposes, of showing that they reasonably believed that their hunting was registered or exempt is welcome. It was demonstrated this morning that the provisions in the clause are, to our way of thinking, draconian. 
 Clause 4 would make it a criminal offence for a person knowingly to permit their land to be entered or used in the course of the commission of an offence under section 1, or knowingly to permit their dog to be used in the commission of such an offence. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said this morning, the ''secondary offences'' are not secondary offences. They are a series of primary offences that go beyond the normal common-law rules on secondary parties. 
 As we deliberate on the Bill—the Minister is not listening—I wonder what it is about hunting that justifies the creation of three new crimes. There are well-established common-law rules on secondary parties and it is draconian to go beyond them. Plainly, the aim is to enable the prosecution of as many people as possible, which yet again shows that this legislation has little to do with animal welfare. It is an anti-person not a pro-animal Bill. 
 It is worth going over again what a person has to know for these offences to be committed. What does ''knowingly permit'' mean? Does permission have to be given actively, or will mere failure to prevent the act when it is within one's power to do so be sufficient? Does the person have to know that a criminal offence is being committed, or is it sufficient to know what activity is taking place? How is anyone to know how to discharge the duty imposed by the word ''permit'' so as to avoid committing a crime? The Bill is silent on that. 
 By way of illustration, I shall offer two scenarios that show how the Bill could operate. A person walking his dog on the local heath goes on holiday, his next-door neighbour looks after the dog while he is away and follows the same route. One day the dog chases after a hare and is spotted by a person opposed to hunting with dogs. The dog owner and the neighbour may face prosecution. 
 It is well known that hares live on heaths. Animal rights activists launch a ''Save the hare'' campaign. The dog owner goes on holiday, the neighbour agrees to look after the dog and says that he may go on the heath. He does so, and the dog is seen sniffing around 
 following a scent. The owner and neighbour may face prosecution. 
 The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) would delete the reference to section 1, and we believe that that is unwarranted. The Minister was confused as to whether activities are exempt or require registration under the Bill. That reveals the plethora of grey areas that we expose day in, day out as the Committee makes progress. In the past, we have debated whether registration is required in certain circumstances, and we still have not reached a definitive conclusion. Those circumstances may involve field trails, in which gun dogs are judged on their ability to flush quarry from cover, including hares, and the training of young dogs for falconry, during which no bird of prey will be present to take any flushed animals. Concerns have also been raised, and were reiterated by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire a few moments ago, about flushing hares in winter fields to be shot. Does ploughed ground constitute cover? Must gamekeepers be registered in case more than two dogs in a beating line on a shoot flush a fox from cover? 
 If the Minister, who is the author and mastermind of the Bill, is confused as to what is exempt and what requires registration, how is the average gamekeeper or falconer meant to know? That could easily result in someone being prosecuted for hunting without registration when they thought that they were operating under an exemption. 
 We do not support the amendment. It is imperative for the sense, interpretation and enforceability of the Bill that the defence in clause 5 is retained.

Alun Michael: I am slightly puzzled. The hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) was not in favour of the amendment and seemed to suggest that there was confusion in the Bill when there is not. Much of the confusion is in the minds of Opposition Members. If they read the record with a genuine will to be clear about what the Bill does and what it says, they will find that their questions have been clearly and adequately answered.

Rob Marris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for East Devon misunderstands the Bill slightly when he talks about the neighbour who takes the holidaymaker's dog for a walk? That is covered in clause 45(2), which contains the definition of hunting. If a neighbour takes a dog for a walk and it chases a hare, that neighbour is not hunting.

Alun Michael: That is correct. The definition of hunting is clear, as I have repeated several times. A person cannot take part in unintentional hunting. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Wiltshire says, from a sedentary position, ''Aha—intentional hunting''. The intention is part of the definition of hunting, not a separate element. We cannot have unintentional hunting and the sooner that Opposition Members understand that and apply it to the part of the Bill where they appear to find confusion, the sooner they will find clarity, rather than confusion, in the Bill. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but in the triumph of hope over expectation.

James Gray: I do not know why the Minister has to reduce himself to cheap comments all the time. I welcome the clarification that he has just given us. He has, once again, made it plain that the offence under the Bill will be hunting with intention and that unintentional hunting will not be an offence. That is precisely the clarification that I sought. I am very grateful. Under Pepper v. Hart, the law courts will make great use of those remarks.

George Stevenson: Order. As patient as I am, my patience is running a little thin with some of the picky contributions and interventions. I do not think that they assist the debate at all. I urge hon. Members to control their enthusiasms rather more than they have heretofore.

Alun Michael: Mr. Stevenson, I—

Hugo Swire: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: One moment. Let me deal with the previous intervention first.
 I shall try to obey your injunction to the letter, Mr. Stevenson. However, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire purported to feed my words back to me and misinterpreted them again. He said that ''unintentional hunting'' will not be caught, but there cannot be any such thing as unintentional hunting. That is my point.

George Stevenson: Order. I hesitate to say this, but it seems to me that in the course of controversial and heated debate, which this Bill of necessity will engender, there are bound to be misinterpretations and different interpretations. That is the essence of debate. I am trying to get hon. Members to understand that we must not react to different interpretations, as part of that debate, as seems increasingly to be happening in this Committee. That is what bothers me.

Alun Michael: I accept that ruling entirely and shall do my best to be moderate even when I feel provoked. As I said, the point, which is germane to the amendment, is that a person cannot hunt unknowingly or unconsciously.

Hugo Swire: The Minister seems to be confused about our position on the amendment. He was not listening at the beginning of my small peroration, but I do not attach any blame to him for that. We do not support the amendment. We would rather keep the reference to section 1 and add section 4 as well. I hope that that clarifies our position.

Alun Michael: That clarification is helpful.
 Although I understand what the hon. Member for St. Ives is trying to achieve in the amendment, it would not achieve the end result that he seeks. At present, the Bill enables a person charged with an offence of hunting with dogs to rely on the defence that he 
''reasonably believed that the hunting was registered, or exempt.''
 As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendment would remove that defence against the section 1 offence of taking part in unlawful hunting and transfer it to the section 4 offences of knowingly permitting land or dogs to be used for unlawful hunting. Under the section 1 offence, it must be fair that a person who reasonably believed that the hunting they were 
 undertaking was registered or exempt would not be committing an offence because they would lack the necessary criminal intent. That is basic to what we put in legislation. There are no grounds—this may be at the heart of the amendment—for believing that the offence could be a loophole. It would be for the prosecuting authority and the courts to determine on the facts whether the defence was available. The courts frequently deal with the defence of not knowing what one was doing and not understanding what the law meant. They are experienced in examining that defence and deciding whether it is a try-on or someone genuinely believed that what they were doing was reasonable and within the law.

Edward Garnier: If someone is acquitted of a section 1 offence by virtue of the defence in clause 5, presumably someone accused of permitting the use of the land on which that innocent person was not hunting would also be acquitted under clause 4.

Alun Michael: The hon. and learned Gentleman tempts me into speculation. I suppose that it would be possible for someone to undertake an activity that they thought was legal and for the landowner to know that it was an illegal activity, so I suppose there is a theoretical possibility that the landowner could be guilty whereas the person undertaking the hunting was not. I think that that is unlikely, but it would be theoretically possible because they are two separate offences.

Rob Marris: I suggest that my right hon. Friend has another think about that. If no offence is committed under section 1, a person cannot be charged under clause 4 with assisting with something that is not an offence.

Alun Michael: I said that it would be theoretically possible, although in practice I do not believe that a court would convict on that basis. If someone had undertaken an activity, they could hardly have sought permission to undertake it if they did not know that it was illegal. The more I think about it, the less likely it seems that the situation could arise, so I think that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough is right and no offence would be committed under clause 4 if no offence had been committed under section 1. I am grateful to him for his tutorial. I hope that what I have said is correct; I shall check it.
 As I said, I do not believe that the defence could be used as a loophole or an excuse for undertaking activities and pretending that they were not taking place under section 1. Also, there is no need to create a similar defence for clause 4 offences of knowingly permitting land or dogs to be used to commit an offence of unlawful hunting. If someone knowingly permits his property to be used for a criminal offence, he cannot then seek to defend himself on the grounds that he reasonably believed that no offence had been committed. That is why the word ''knowingly'' is in clause 4. It provides the defence that the hon. Member for St. Ives wants to ensure is there. I hope that I have reassured him that clause 4 meets his intention in the amendment, and I urge him not to press it.

Andrew George: There has been a great deal of discussion about the word ''intention''. It was not my intention when moving the amendment to provoke the lengthy soliloquy from the hon. Member for East Devon which he read with some aplomb. I listened carefully to the Minister's response. He accepts that we must protect landowners who need a defence when hunters are breaking a regulation and the landowners had not knowingly permitted that unlawful activity to take place on their land. Given that his measured response, which was helpful, is on the record, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Deer

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

James Gray: We now move to some of the most controversial aspects of the Bill, namely the outright bans on deer hunting and hare coursing in clauses 6 and 7. Before I speak to the end that the clause should not stand part of the Bill, I should declare for the sake of good order not a financial interest but the fact that last year I enjoyed a day's hunting with the Devon and Somerset stag hounds. Today, even though I am not a member of the hunt, I am proud to be wearing a tie of the Devon and Somerset stag hounds, speaking up for a beleaguered minority on Exmoor and elsewhere.
 My day's hunting took place courtesy of Mr. Tom Yandle, the chairman of the hunt, whose ancestors have been mainstays in deer hunting on Exmoor. In 1850, his great-grandfather revived the hunt when the deer population of Exmoor was almost entirely removed from the moor. He and his family have been responsible, with a great many other people, for restoring the good fortune of the deer population on Exmoor and I pay tribute to him and others like him on the moor. 
 Abolishing deer hunting on Exmoor would be like abolishing football in the east end of London, or rugby in the Welsh valleys. It would rip the heart out of the life and livelihood of the moor. For that reason, when the Bill was published, one of the greatest areas of puzzlement—I put it no more strongly than that—and outrage was the way in which the Minister singled out deer hunting and hare coursing to be banned. We have said before that at the Portcullis House hearings, there was only one major area of unanimous agreement among all who gave evidence, which was that no differentiation should be made between the different species of mammals to be hunted. The scientists on both sides concluded that they should all be judged alike. 
 The Minister has made great play of the principles of cruelty and utility. We are all concerned about their precise definition and we looked forward to a clean, intellectual and scientific discussion of the cruelty and utility of each type of hunting. Frankly, we were astonished and puzzled by the Minister's unilateral decision to ban deer hunting and hare coursing 
 without further discussion with any of the interested parties. 
 The principles of utility and suffering in the Bill are without question flawed and badly defined and almost certainly defined to ban certain human activities that the Labour party does not like. If the Bill is to have any legitimacy at all, and if it is to have any chance of acceptance in the countryside, it must at least appear to be logical and unbiased. The banning of deer hunting gives every possible appearance of bias. We need to discuss why the Minister in his eyrie—his office—chose single-handedly to ban deer hunting. There is no question about it. In his statement to the House of Commons, he referred to a visit to Exmoor and said plainly: 
''I have spent time there and met all the groups to understand the reasoning behind the defence of hunting. The evidence is conclusive and that is why I believe it must be banned.''—[Official Report, 16 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 574.]
 He stated straightforwardly that he believes it must be banned, with no possible variation of his stance. He has since argued, over and over again, including in the Committee, that he has irrefutable evidence as to why he took that decision and why he concluded that deer hunting must be banned. It is important that we hear during the Committee stage of the Bill precisely what that irrefutable evidence is. We should also have the opportunity to discuss it in detail. 
 The Minister chose personally and single-handedly not to allow the registrar to consider the cruelty and utility of stag hunting: he would not allow that to go to the tribunal; he would not allow points of law to be considered by the courts in regard of the cruelty and utility of stag hunting; he took that view—he, the lord high executioner of deer hunting, the grand high panjandrum of Exmoor—and made the decision in his infinite wisdom that the evidence against stag hunting was so overwhelmingly convincing that he did not need to go through all that nonsense and that he was perfectly justified in banning it outright. If the evidence that brought him to that conclusion is, as he constantly describes it, irrefutable and overwhelming, hon. Members need to know what it is and the people of Exmoor need to know what it is. We must have the opportunity to examine in great detail and discuss what I hope is scientific evidence. I hope that the Minister will put us out of our misery and will tell us straightforwardly in precise detail, with quotations, what irrefutable evidence led him to his conclusion. 
 In the absence so far of the irrefutable evidence, let us take the opportunity this morning to try to imagine what the registrar and the tribunal might think about stag hunting; let us imagine that Devon and Somerset stag hounds were applying for registration and, just for the moment, let us take the Minister at his word in his famous letter of 10 April, in which he was 
''sure that species management would form part of the utility test.''
 I remind the Committee that we have quoted that letter to the Minister often. In that letter he described utility thus: 
''Utility addresses the need for particular activities, particularly the work of land and wildlife managers. It might be described as the need or usefulness of an activity for vermin control, wildlife 
management, habitat protection or land management and conservation.''
 Wildlife management, habitat protection, land management and conservation were included in the utility tests and, as we all know, by the time the Bill was printed, for reasons best known to the Minister or perhaps to the parliamentary Labour party, the wildlife management aspect had been removed. 
 Let us imagine, for the moment, that the wildlife management test were still included in the Bill. If it were, there is little doubt what the outcome of the Devon and Somerset stag hounds' application to the registrar would be. I quote no less an authority than Lord Burns, who said: 
''Because of the widespread support which . . . ''
 deer hunting 
''enjoys and the consequent tolerance by farmers of deer, hunting at present makes a significant contribution to the management of the deer population.''
 Lord Burns made that remark about Devon and Somerset. 
 What better source could we have than the League Against Cruel Sports? The excellent Mr. Graham Sirl was the head of west country operations for the league until he realised the error of his ways. He wrote to the editors of West Country Newspapers, saying: 
''I do now believe that hunting with hounds does play an integral part in the management system for deer on Exmoor and the Quantocks . . . Those who don't acknowledge this to be true, or similarly choose to ignore the same, are turning their backs on an argument that they know is difficult to win.''
 Mr. Sirl fought against stag hunting on Exmoor for some seven years as the head of head of west country operations for the League Against Cruel Sports. Incidentally, I look forward to visiting the League Against Cruel Sports sanctuary on Exmoor on Friday this week and seeing what it is up to. Graham Sirl was absolutely convinced; he has said that he devoted seven years of his life trying to get rid of stag hunting on Exmoor but after seven years of intimate, day-to-day experience of what was happening on Exmoor, he has come to the conclusion that hunting with hounds plays an important part in the management of deer on Exmoor and the Quantocks. 
 At Portcullis House, the Exmoor and District deer management society said: 
''It is difficult to see what management structures could be put in place that would be effective in retaining the desired outcome of conserving a healthy wild red deer population. The support from local people is the biggest determining factor in the sustainability of the herd and the role of the hunt in weaving together the delicate web of social, economic and environmental strands that have evolved over many generations should not be underestimated because it cannot be replicated''.
 That is an important point. The community of Exmoor is so determined to preserve hunting that it plays an extremely important part in the glue that holds the society together. The Exmoor national park authority—we have some great authorities on our side—says that it is 
''concerned that a ban on the hunting of deer with hounds would represent a very significant change in the management of the wild deer herd of Exmoor which'',
 as has been explained, 
''might adversely affect the future sustainability of the herd, and by extension a much valued aspect of Exmoor's cultural heritage. It would also have a serious impact on the social and economic well being of its rural communities. In this way, it could put the National Park Authority's own statutory purposes and duties at risk''.
 Any authority that knows anything about deer on Exmoor, including the head of the west country operations of the League Against Cruel Sports, acknowledges the contribution that hunting with hounds makes to the survival, health and prosperity of the deer population on Exmoor. I am much indebted to Mr. Dick Lloyd, the president of the Devon and Somerset stag hounds, for a most interesting graph of the approximate number of deer on Exmoor. I shall not show it to the Committee, but he has demonstrated that by 1855 there were only 50 deer left on Exmoor; they were almost extinct. Since then, there has been an exponential rise, and today there are some 2,500 to 3,000 deer on Exmoor alone. What is so significant about 1855? That is when Mr. Tom Yandle's great-grandfather reinvented the Devon and Somerset stag hounds. Ever since then, there has been hunting on Exmoor, and the rise in the deer population is in direct proportion to the amount of hunting that has been done. 
 There can be no better evidence of the utility of hunting with dogs in terms of species management, and if we were to take what the Minister says in his letter of 10 April at face value, he should take that kind of evidence into consideration when deciding on the utility of deer hunting. However, let us suppose that the Minister went back on his word in the letter, and that we accepted the—woefully inadequate, in our view—definition of ''utility'' in the Bill. The registrar would, if allowed, be considering the applications of the Devon and Somerset stag hounds, and the other two packs of stag hounds, from the point of ''utility'' as it is defined in the Bill. For the sake of the exercise, let us consider what the registrar would do under the dreadfully inadequate current definition of utility. 
 First, although we oppose the Bill, the registrar would without question accept that the use of dogs for controlling deer was essential for pest control. The phrase ''pest control'' is perfectly plain with regard to deer; there is no question but that they are pests. When grazing, a deer can eat as much as three sheep. A farmer may find as many as 100 deer at a time in his field, and grazing fodder is needed for his herd. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who is the president, or some such functionary, of the League Against Cruel Sports—

Tony Banks: Vice-president, actually.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman says that he is vice-president. I am so sorry. He might know a little more about deer if he were president; however, he is only vice-president, and that explains his ignorance of the subject. The fact is that a deer eats three times as much as a sheep. [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for West Ham wants to intervene.

George Stevenson: Order. I have tried to guide the Committee away from interventions—particularly sedentary ones—in which words such as the one that
 I think I just heard are used. We should refrain from that.

James Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Am I right in thinking that the words ''Piss off cretin'', which the hon. Member for West Ham used, are unparliamentary?

George Stevenson: I am sure that those words, if used, would be unparliamentary. I did not hear them, personally, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that if I did, I would take firm action.

James Gray: Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I take great personal offence at being described, while making a serious speech on deer hunting, as a cretin by the hon. Member for West Ham. I heard him and it would be reasonable of him to apologise.

George Stevenson: I try my best to listen carefully to every contribution. I honestly did not hear those words. If I had heard them, I would have taken the necessary firm action. Can we please have less pickiness from Members when other hon. Members are making contributions?

James Gray: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Stevenson. We are talking about something very serious: the pest element of red deer on Exmoor. The truth is that deer eat three times as much grass as sheep—a deer eats the equivalent of three sheep—and that is a huge problem. On Exmoor, we are talking largely about livestock farming; there is relatively little arable farming. The fact that a deer eats three times as much as a sheep is of great significance. One can often see as many as 100 deer in a field at any one moment, which is equivalent to 300 sheep. There is great depredation of the forage for cows and sheep.
 Farmers are legally entitled to kill deer with a shotgun or rifle, both in and out of season, if they are doing damage. However, the collective interest in the deer herd, which hunting fosters, means that farmers tend to refrain from shooting large stags in particular, which would otherwise have the most value for venison and trophies. They leave the large stags alone because the farmers support the hunt and want it to hunt them later in the season. 
 To keep numbers stable, approximately 20 per cent. of the population must be culled each year. That figure is far in excess of natural mortality. Hunting with hounds also distributes the deer and moves local deer populations away from the areas where they are causing unacceptable damage. There is no question but that that happens—a utility acknowledged by the Minister. The forced movement of deer discourages inbreeding and the spread of disease among the herd. The hunt carries out those extremely important utilities. 
 In addition, the hunt provides an efficient service by locating and culling deer that have been wounded in road accidents. That happens all the time. The hunt operates a 24-hour call-out service and if there is a road accident, it goes out and dispatches the injured deer. Deer sometimes get entangled in wire or fencing 
 and often are injured as a result of inaccurate shooting. The three packs deal with some 80 deer casualties each year. In some years, that is almost as many deer as they hunt.

Gregory Barker: As a result of his dialogue with the Minister, does my hon. Friend have any idea who would perform those important animal welfare functions in the event of a ban?

James Gray: To do the Minister justice, he has talked about whether there should be a deer management society of one sort or another and about alternative means of pest management and dealing with injured deer. If hunting with dogs is banned, he and the Under-Secretary will doubtless try to tackle that very problem. So far, however, the right hon. Gentleman has not done so. It is at least theoretically possible that the Bill could become law by this summer and that there would be no more stag hunting, although I hope that that will not be the case, yet no alternative deer-management or casualty-management procedure has been put in place.

Hugo Swire: Does my hon. Friend share my belief that if the driving force behind the Bill were the welfare of animals, the Minister, his officials and all those who have been lobbying him for a complete ban on stag hunting, would by now have enacted legislation that would mean that deer herds were looked after in the event of a ban on stag hunting?

James Gray: My hon. Friend is right, but I am keen to be as generous as I can to the Minister and I hope that he will take action and that his officials are, at this very moment, considering alternatives. My experience of the civil service machine is that such problems tend to be considered. I hope that officials are working on precisely the problem that my hon. Friend describes. When the Minister replies, perhaps he will let us know how he intends to replace the casualty-management service that is carried out by the hunts on Exmoor and the Quantocks. I have my doubts, as we say in Scotland, but let us hope that the Minister is ready to spell out precisely what will be done.
 That is not a major part of our attack on the Government's proposals. If we said that this Government are awful and that they are going to allow deer to suffer in the way that my hon. Friend describes, it would be easy for them to demonstrate that that is not the case. That should not be our main attack on them; the main attack is on the fundamental illogicality of removing deer hunting and hare coursing from clause 8. 
 We are easily able to prove the utility of hunting deer on Exmoor with dogs. They are pests and I have demonstrated a number of different ways in which there is utility in using dogs to hunt them, even under the narrow definitions of utility as it now appears in the Bill. 
 I can do no better than quote the Minister. On Second Reading on 16 December, he said: 
''It is necessary to control deer numbers and to disperse the herds to protect crops and growing trees. Although the test of utility may be passed, the test of cruelty—to inflict the least suffering—is not''.
 This is an interesting admission from the Minister. He went on: 
''I spent some time in Exmoor because it is clear that there is an unusual culture in respect of the deer herd. Even some of those who strongly oppose deer hunting acknowledge that powerful cultural attachment''.—[Official Report, 16 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 574.]
 In the other place, his colleague Lord Whitty said: 
''Certainly, deer hunting can meet a utility in some circumstances, but the evidence indicates that other forms of controlling deer herds are less cruel . . . My Lords, not only the Porchester report, but also the Burns report recognised the special situation on Exmoor, and parts of Somerset and Devon, where hunting helped control the deer. However, it still remains the case that there are less cruel methods of managing deer herds, on Exmoor as elsewhere''.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 January 2003; Vol. 643, c. 352.]
 Both the Minister and his noble Friend in the other place said that it is possible that there is utility in the use of dogs in controlling deer on Exmoor and in Devon and Somerset, but there are less cruel ways of doing this. Both these statements imply an acceptance that there may be utility, but that the incontrovertible evidence that he describes relates to cruelty. He and his noble Friend both admit that there is definitely utility in the use of dogs for the control of deer on Exmoor, even under the narrow definition as amended in the Bill. 
 To return to our registrar, who is considering the reply of the Devon and Somerset stag hounds. The Minister said that there is incontrovertible evidence why they should be banned, and the registrar wants to know what it is. It is clear that there is utility and that the Devon and Somerset stag hounds would pass the utility test even as he has redefined it in the Bill. If we take his letter of April 10 at its face value, using hounds would certainly pass the wider definition of utility.

Alan Whitehead: I understand that the total number of deer that are culled by the hunt on the utility argument is some 15 per cent of the total required. I also understand that the Burns report observes that the pattern of deer herds suggests that when they are hunted the dispersal of herds is slight and temporary. Can the hon. Gentleman explain how those two points fit in with the notion of utility that he is pursuing?

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman asked two extremely good questions. On his first question, hunting is a selective cull. The harbourer selects the stag or the hind that is to be killed on the principle that its death will improve the herd. He selects the older and weaker deer, the ones with less good antlers, and so forth. Stalking is by definition far less selective, although the stalkers try to make it selective. I have experience of stalking in the highlands of Scotland. It is extremely unlikely that one will be all that selective, as the likelihood of getting a good clean shot at a stag is reasonably remote, especially if one is not a particularly good stalker. I was always getting into trouble for banging things against stones and scaring the deer. One does not get that many clean shots and the likelihood of being extremely selective by choosing a stag from the herd the day before and deciding to take it out is frankly remote.
 The hon. Gentleman made a second point about dispersal. As I said, Lord Burns talks in favour of 
 dispersal, but was concerned about the notion of fathers breeding with their daughters. An important aspect of dispersal is spreading the deer population across the moor, and seeking by that means— 
Dr. Whitehead rose—

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman may like to sit down. I am trying to answer his points. We are not involved in backwards and forwards, tit-for-tat dialogue. He asked a couple of interesting questions, which I am trying to answer.
 Lord Burns made an important point about the dispersal of deer and interbreeding. I do not intend to become involved in a detailed debate about Lord Burns. As the Minister said, that would be fruitless. Dispersal performs an important function, especially in preventing inbreeding, but also in moving on deer where they are a particular pest. There are many examples of farmers suddenly discovering 100 or 200 deer on their farms. Hunts move them on in a way that would otherwise be impossible. If it were not for hunts going on to those farms, there would be a strong likelihood of the farmer choosing to shoot them. Thankfully, he does not do so because of hunting.

Adrian Flook: On Thursday, Labour Members, especially the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, asked why 15 per cent. of all those deer that are culled are hunted. I said that I would answer that question, and shall do so in the clause stand part debate. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) also mentioned that 15 per cent. figure, but said that it was not important and that hunting was a peripheral element. However, hunting pays for the deer management. That is the basis for the utility, the lack of which so worries people on Exmoor. If hunting goes, so will deer management.

James Gray: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, although I query the detail. I made the point that if deer management were to be one of the utility tests, deer hunting would pass it without question. Apart from anything else, the increase in the size of the herd is clear evidence of utility under the terms of species management. Unfortunately, species management has been deleted from the Bill, despite the Minister's assurance in a letter of 10 April that it would be one of the utility tests. We know that we cannot take anything that he says at face value.
 I seek to show that, even though we dislike the illiberal terms of utility in the Bill, it is likely that deer hunting would pass the utility test, as the Bill clearly covers the damage that deer do to crops, grass and trees, and that damage is easy to prove.

Michael Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: I should like to make progress.
 At the very least, even if there are detailed discussions to be had about whether deer hunting passes the utility test, there is no such thing as irrefutable evidence. It is not possible for any member of the Committee to claim to have irrefutable evidence that deer hunting on Exmoor does not pass the utility tests. Some people may say 
 that the number of deer killed compared with the total number of those culled or the amount of damage that they cause is small. We could argue backwards and forwards about whether there is utility in the detail. My point is not whether we should justify deer hunting in detail, but whether we should give the registrar the opportunity to consider those matters. That is what happens with hunting fox, hare or mink—but not deer. 
 The Minister said that there was irrefutable evidence that deer hunting must be banned. I seek to discover what that overwhelming evidence is. I do not believe that that irrefutable evidence has anything to do with the utility test, which is why I shall talk about the cruelty test in a moment. 
Mr. Foster rose—

James Gray: If the hon. Gentleman is about to tell us about the overwhelming, gigantically overpowering arguments that demonstrate that deer hunting would not pass the utility test, I shall happily give way.

Michael Foster: I am most grateful, and shall put the question that I want to put, rather than the question that the hon. Gentleman wants me to put. He said that there were many examples of the dispersal effect of the hunt with regard to deer hunting—I am pretty sure that I heard him correctly. How is it that Lord Burns never found any of those many examples? Paragraph 5.63 on page 96 of the report says:
''However, census work and observation of deer suggest that any dispersal effect is only very temporary''.

James Gray: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He makes my point for me. Those are the delicate considerations that it is reasonable for the registrar to weigh up. It is reasonable that the registrar should read Burns and say what the evidence on which he based that decision was. That is precisely why the Minister set up the complex system. There must be somebody out there who will consider the issue carefully. The matters are difficult; they are not clear. Is dispersal happening? We do not necessarily know: Burns says that it is not, but I say that it is. There are different opinions. There is no overwhelming evidence that stag hunting has no utility.
 The Minister constantly talks about irrefutable evidence. He has chosen to deny the law courts, the registrar and the tribunal the opportunity of judging those delicate matters. He says that they cannot decide the question, because there is irrefutable, overwhelming evidence that the tests are not passed. I think that we have demonstrated clearly—the intervention by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) adds to the strength of my argument—that there is no evidence at all that the utility tests are not passed. That is a matter of judgment that we should leave to the registrar.

Edward Garnier: Surely the registrar must be invited to consider how efficacious the dispersal of a herd of deer is. One often gets the impression from listening to Government Members that they think that pest control means eradication, and that dispersal means removing deer from Devon and pushing them off to
 Cornwall, Somerset or Wiltshire. The constant movement of a herd prevents it from grazing down any one farmer's land. That is the point to draw to the attention of the hon. Member for Worcester.

James Gray: My hon. and learned Friend makes a good point, but once again I tell him and the Committee that it is not our job to discuss the finer points of the utility of deer hunting. I hope that I have demonstrated that there is significant utility—the Minister admitted that there was on Second Reading. However, the utility, how important the dispersal might be, how important the selective cull might be, and how much damage might be done to crops and to trees are detailed matters that should not be decided unilaterally by the Minister in the privacy of his office. It would be reasonable to allow the registrar to consider them. I do not have the monopoly of correctness on those matters and merely point out that they are matters for debate. It would be reasonable under the terms of the Bill to allow the registrar and the tribunal to hear evidence on those matters and to consider them sensibly.
 I hope that I have demonstrated to the Committee that there is no overwhelming evidence against the utility of deer hunting. Some people may argue that there are detailed reasons why the utility is not as strong as I would like to believe, but there is still no overwhelming, irrefutable evidence of a lack of utility in deer hunting. The registrar should be allowed to consider that. That is precisely what the Minister and his colleague Lord Whitty said on Second Reading. They said that they accepted that there was utility, but that the cruelty aspect none the less dictated an outright ban on the activity. 
 If the Minister is right in saying that the evidence for cruelty is overwhelming, he might persuade me of that in the debate. Again, we must presume that his irrefutable evidence refers to the cruelty aspect of the killing of deer, but that it does not apply to the method of dispatch. It is amazing how many people in England hate deer hunting because they have swallowed the notion of a pack of hounds jumping on the deer, wrestling it to the ground and ripping its bowels and throat out. That is the awful thing—that really would be ghastly, would it not? 
 However, all on the Committee know perfectly well that that is not what happens. At the end of a deer hunt, a trained marksman shoots the deer at close quarters. There is no suggestion that the hounds leap on the stag, pull it to the ground and do any of the other gory things that Government Members describe. The animal is shot. It receives one clean shot to the head, sometimes two, at close quarters. Anybody who has considered the method of dispatch would say that killing the stag in that way is a great deal more humane than the alternative, which is stalking. By definition, stalking may result in a wounded deer. There is no such thing as a wounded deer at the end of a stag hunt. 
 We are talking more about emotion than about the reality. I suspect that the Minister's irrefutable evidence cannot refer to the actual method of dispatch of the deer, so I presume that it must refer to the pursuit, which I shall discuss in one moment. 
 If the Minister believed that the wicked acts that he disliked, and that should be banned, occurred in the deer's final moments, or even when the fox is killed after a foxhunt, the Bill presumably would ban them. Curiously, the Bill will not ban killing foxes using dogs—that will still be allowed. The pursuit of the fox will be banned. If I were anti-hunting on the other side of the Committee I may have sought to ban the killing of those animals. [Interruption.] I am disappointed with the hon. Member for West Ham. He looks in briefly on the Committee, launches an unparliamentary attack and then leaves again. He does not have a great deal of interest in these matters. He is off—perhaps he will be back some other time.

Eric Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Is it not out of order for the hon. Gentleman not to speak through the Chair?

George Stevenson: Indeed. I am trying to think of another word, but pickiness is the one that comes to mind. I really do not think that that helps our debate on these serious issues.

James Gray: I agree, Mr. Stevenson. I apologise to the hon. Member for West Ham for calling attention to his absence from the Committee. It was quite uncalled for—

George Stevenson: Order. You have repeated the remark, and I do not think that that helps.

James Gray: You are quite right, Mr. Stevenson. I accept that I should not have done that. I accept your injunctions completely.
 The point that I was making was that the killing of the deer cannot be what the Minister seeks to ban, and not only because most observers would accept that the moment when the deer is shot is less cruel than any other method of dispatch. It may well be less humane to shoot the deer with a rifle from some distance. 
 If there was a presumption that there was something inherently cruel about the method of killing deer or other mammals in the final few minutes of a hunt, the Bill would have sought to ban such methods of dispatch. However, it seeks only to ban the pursuit of the animal, not its killing. 
 It is not utility that is the irrefutable evidence, and—unless he wishes to correct me in his winding-up speech—it is not how the animal is killed that causes the Minister to ban stag hunting. I presume therefore that it is the question of the pursuit. 
 Before I deal with the pursuit, I shall quote a couple of authorities who accept the point about the method of dispatch being one of the most humane ways to kill deer. Vets for Hunting states that 
''No one should be under the illusion that stalking, compared with hunting . . . is the humane option''.
 Animals that are shot in the neck are usually paralysed but can remain conscious for some time. A lethal shot to the chest may result in the deer running several hundred yards before it drops. 
 Professor Bateson, to whom I shall return in a moment, estimates that 10 per cent. of stalked deer require two or more shots to be killed, and 5 per cent. escape wounded. The truth is that, in the wild, wooded 
 and populous west country, with numerous tourists often present, up to half of all potential shots by stalkers are aborted on safety grounds. Under those conditions, selectivity becomes extremely difficult for a stalker aiming to kill a given quota of animals.

Rob Marris: Could the hon. Gentleman repeat the figures? I think that he said that 10 per cent. required two or more shots and 5 per cent. escape. If I have understood his figures correctly, that suggests that 85 per cent. are dispatched with one shot. Am I understanding the figures correctly?

James Gray: That is right; 15 from 100 gives 85, and five from 100 gives 95. That is certainly correct. If 15 per cent. of deer die in agony as a result of being wounded by the marksman, that is something that we should worry about, when 100 per cent. of all deer that are hunted are dispatched by the trained shots. It is nearly always one shot; occasionally it takes two shots, but 100 per cent. are dispatched. The figure that Professor Bateson gave, of 15 per cent. escaping injured, is a significant percentage.
 The problem in the west country is that there are a lot of tourists and many shots are aborted. Selectivity is extremely difficult, because the stalker shoots the first available stag in order to reach his quota. The Exmoor and District Deer Management Society has said: 
''A ban therefore would be bad for the welfare of the deer herd and increase the numbers of animals killed/wounded, at least in the first five years.''
 Again I can do no better than quote from Mr. Charles Harding, the stalker for the National Trust. In the aftermath of the Bateson report, the National Trust chose to ban hunting with deer across its estate on Exmoor, but its stalker says: 
''All types of animal management involve compromises. There is no doubt that a total ban on staghunting has increased the number of sick and injured deer on the Holnicote Estate, it has gone on long enough. It is now time for the National Trust to accept these consequences and be prepared, for the sake of the deer, to be brave enough to step forward and allow hounds to draw some coverts.''
 Therefore, it is not difficult to come to the conclusion that the method of dispatch of the deer is not at the heart of the Minister's concerns. If it is, we look forward to hearing what he says about it. 
 Theoretically, some people may argue that it takes more than one shot to kill the stag at the end of the hunt. Others may argue that using the weapon that the hunt uses is less humane than a high-powered rifle. There may be arguments of that kind, but they are not overwhelming and incontrovertible. Those arguments should be advanced to the registrar and the tribunal, who have been set up under the Bill to consider the relative weights of such technical and detailed arguments. On hearing them, they may conclude that the method of dispatch of the deer was cruel and, for that reason, the registrar may turn down the application. 
 What I am searching for here is what the Minister describes as the incontrovertible and overwhelming evidence that led him to the unilateral decision to ban stag hunting, without further recourse to the registrar 
 or the tribunal. There is no evidence that the final method of killing the deer has consequences that are incontrovertibly harmful to animals. 
 The last area that we must examine in considering where the Minister's incontrovertible evidence comes from must be the way in which the deer is pursued before it is killed. There is utility and the method of killing the deer is not cruel, so we must presume that, for some reason, the Minister has come to the conclusion that his incontrovertible evidence is scientific evidence with regard to the pursuit. It is important that that evidence be put on the record, whether or not the Minister chooses to quote selectively from it in his desperate attempt to find incontrovertible evidence. 
 The first study of the pursuit phase of the hunt was done in 1993 by a deer working party chaired by Professor Savage. He published a report commissioned by the National Trust entitled ''The Conservation and Management of Red Deer in the West Country''. The report concluded that hunts made a major contribution to deer conservation and served their interests well. The report did not consider animal welfare. 
 The central part of the debate is the 1997 report by Professor Bateson, the provost of King's college, Cambridge. It should be remembered that Professor Bateson's field is animal behaviour and that the National Trust commissioned him to investigate animal welfare. The report considered only the welfare of the individual deer at the time of culling. Although it acknowledged the benefits of hunting to the herd as a whole, it concluded that, on average, hunting caused more suffering to individual deer than did culling by stalking. The National Trust then banned hunting on its land. 
 The important point is that Bateson accepted the utility or the lack of cruelty with regard to the deer herd as a whole. He accepted that hunting with hounds had an advantage for the herd, although he argued that there was a welfare disadvantage with regard to individual deer. 
 Immediately after Bateson produced his report, there was widespread scientific criticism of some of his methodology and the interpretations that he drew from his data. A meeting of scientists chaired by Professor Lord Soulsby considered the matter and concluded that the scientific case against hunting had not been proven, and that further research was needed before a safe decision could be made one way or the other. 
 The Countryside Alliance, the Devon and Somerset stag hounds and the Quantock stag hounds then commissioned Professor Roger Harris of University College Chichester, various co-workers and the Royal Veterinary College to undertake further studies, which Professor Bateson and Lord Burns were subsequently to call for.

Adrian Flook: Will my hon. Friend confirm that Professor Bateson is an animal behaviourist, not a
 physiologist? It is quite an important distinction, is it not?

James Gray: It is an extremely important distinction. Most of Professor Bateson's conclusions were about physiology, but as my hon. Friend says, he is an animal behaviourist, not a physiologist. If Professor Bateson were here today, he would acknowledge that that was the case. As I have said, the National Trust commissioned him to produce the report. He undertook it largely with regard to animal behaviour, bringing in some physiological evidence, but he would be the first to acknowledge that he was not a physiologist.
 Professor Harris, by contrast, was selected for the second study precisely because he was an expert in the physiology of exercise. His co-workers included pathologists and veterinarians. His report, which was known as the joint universities study, was published in 1999. Its conclusion was discussed in the same year at a general meeting involving the Harris group, Professor Bateson and associates at King's college. 
 Professor Harris, Professor Bateson and the other scientists issued a unanimous press statement in which they acknowledged that most hunted deer experienced some suffering and a few might suffer severely. However, they further agreed that there were advantages to the continuance of hunting and that ways should be sought to modify practices to reduce any suffering. Subsequent press activity created distrust between the parties and disrupted the attempt to compromise. None the less, the press release was extremely plain. Professor Bateson, Professor Harris and the others unanimously concluded that although they did not like some parts of practices to do with stag hunting, there were overall advantages to the continuance of hunting. 
 The joint universities study scientists concluded that much of the blood damage found in the Bateson study could be ascribed to collection after the fact; the blood was damaged by collection methods after the death of the deer. They concluded that the physiological and biochemical changes observed in their study and the Bateson study had no sinister connotations in respect of welfare, and were similar to those typically encountered in equine and human athletes taking extended exercise. If a horse takes part in a hard day's hunting or when someone runs a marathon, the physiological effects at the end will be not dissimilar to the blood effects described by the joint universities scientists who examined Professor Bateson's deer. 
 In that context, I move on to an important point. The study found no evidence to suggest that deer that are hunted but escape suffer severely, although a small minority may suffer muscle stiffness for a day or two. I must admit that after a day's hunting, I suffer muscle stiffness for a day or two. My wife would like to ban it, but I am delighted to say that she still allows me to carry it out. There is no evidence of severe physiological consequences for escaped deer. 
 The joint universities study applied to the Home Office for a licence to carry out a scientific study on escaped deer. The only scientific way to consider the physiological effects of the hunt would be to spot the 
 deer that escaped and carry out tests on them the next day or the day after that. It is worrying that the Home Office turned the application down, apparently on the grounds that there was no evidence that such research was needed. I do not know how the Home Office knew that until research had been carried out; it seems to have used rather a circular argument. The Minister's colleagues in the Home Office refused permission to carry out those scientific tests on escaped deer, so we do not have the physiological evidence needed to demonstrate either that Professor Bateson was right in his animal behaviourist conclusion that deer suffer in the chase, or that Professor Harris was right in his conclusion that they do not. 
 One scientist seems to me—from a layman's perspective—to have come to a sensible and convincing conclusion; there is no evidence that hunted deer urinate, whereas there is evidence that many animals urinate when in a state of fear. I am not great on physiology, I am reasonably convinced by the fact that a hunted deer has not urinated by the time that it is killed that stress is not caused in the way that Professor Bateson suggested.

Rob Marris: I am trying to follow carefully what the hon. Gentleman said, and I should like to take him back a couple of paragraphs. He mentioned that the joint universities study got together for a symposium with Harris, Bateson and others, that it put out the joint statement saying, inter alia, that the hunting of deer by dogs caused some distress and that its members then fell out afterwards. Perhaps that is to put a slight gloss on the matter, because of media reports. When those scientists got together, did they discuss other methods of hunting, and whether those caused equal or less distress?

James Gray: Yes, that was the nature of the study. The scientists said that stalking, which I mentioned a moment ago, caused significantly more distress because of higher wounding rates.
 Professors Bateson and Harris were jointly commissioned by Lord Burns to write chapter 7 of his report. Although the physiological aspects of the report were written jointly, Professor Bateson alone wrote the part of the report pertaining to welfare because Professor Harris, very nobly, did not want to be associated with a field in which he claimed no expertise. As a physiologist, he chose not to become involved with discussions on animal welfare, although by contrast, Professor Bateson became involved with discussions on physiology even though he was not a physiologist. 
 As a result of Professor Harris not taking part in the sections on animal welfare, there were discrepancies between the conclusions and interpretations in the two parts of the report. Professor Bateson reverted to his original views for the welfare section, having apparently accepted in the earlier section that there were valid alternative views. There is a most interesting debate here between two learned and distinguished scientists. Both gave evidence to and advised Lord Burns. Both came together in the joint university study. Both sought to carry out further tests on escaped deer. Those distinguished and honourable academics apparently 
 cannot come to a unanimous conclusion on whether the pursuit phase is cruel, and seek further evidence on that. 
 Again, the Minister could perfectly reasonably advise the registrar and tribunal to get in touch with Professors Harris and Bateson and consider very carefully their complex and difficult evidence. They might then conclude that the pursuit phase is extremely cruel and sufficient to justify the banning of stag hunting; but again I say to the Committee that that should not be a matter for us to consider. 
 The Bill will set up the tribunal and the registrar to consider the matter, but the Minister has none the less chosen, from what he describes as ''irrefutable evidence'', to ban hunting. He has denied the registrar and the tribunal the opportunity to consider the complex scientific evidence, which I do not begin to understand. I would not claim to understand such evidence because I am not a scientist. A civil servant considering the matter with a cold towel round his head, and with the joint advice of Professors Bateson and Harris, might have a chance of understanding the evidence. 
 If the Minister thinks that he understood the evidence and that his overwhelming and irrefutable evidence comes from either the Bateson evidence or the Harris evidence, he must let us know. 
 To answer the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who asked about alternative methods, Professor Bateson concluded that 
''the average welfare costs of wounding a deer would have to be 20 times as bad as those of hunting by hounds for the absence of hunting to have no welfare benefit.''
 That may be complex scientific language, but his point is that the welfare downside of stalking is five times higher than the welfare downside of hunting using hounds. 
 Professor Bateson suggested that the details of a compromise should be left to Professor Webster, the veterinary commissioner of the Independent Supervisory Authority on Hunting. Professor Bateson said that he would publicly endorse the arrangement if Professor Webster could reach an accord with the hunts. In other words, Professor Bateson said that the matter was complicated but that Professor Webster should discuss it with the hunts and, if an accommodation could be reached, he would endorse it. Unfortunately, Professor Bateson could not come to the Portcullis house hearings, but he wrote to the Minister. He acknowledged that there were different interpretations of the data, which could only be resolved by further research or, less satisfactorily, by arbitration by a panel of independent scientists with expertise in the relevant disciplines. 
 One question for the Minister to answer today is whether I am right in thinking that Professor Bateson wrote to him before the Portcullis house hearings, making it plain that he did not support an outright ban on hunting stag, that further research was necessary, that Professor Webster might be the chap to do the research, that there were different 
 interpretations of the data and that the matters were worthy of further consideration by an independent panel. The Minister should clear those matters up; particularly if, as I suspect he will, he chooses to quote Professor Bateson in justifying what he has done. 
 When the Minister announced his draft Bill after the hearings, he said that the scientific case against hunting with hounds was ''incontrovertible'', which is a word that hangs round his neck like the golden thread that hung round his neck on Second Reading. When we brought the incontrovertible evidence to Professor Bateson's attention, he suggested that such a comment could be made only by a ''scientific illiterate'' and that he would at once write to the Minister and dissociate himself from it. Professor Bateson has said that if the Minister thinks that there is incontrovertible evidence supporting the outright banning of hunting, he is a scientific illiterate. 
 I challenge the Minister to come up with ''incontrovertible'' evidence. He must tell us whether there is incontrovertible evidence that there is no utility to hunting; he will be hard pressed so to do. Perhaps he will seek to advance an argument that there is incontrovertible evidence about the method of dispatch of the stag; again, he will be hard pressed so to do. Without his main ally, Professor Bateson—whom he has used up to now in his aid—how can he argue that there is ''incontrovertible evidence'' of cruelty in the pursuit phase of hunting deer? 
 The Minister does not have a leg to stand on because clause 6 is curious and illogical and there is no such thing as incontrovertible evidence on hunting with hounds. Unless he can persuade us to the contrary, I suggest that he has chosen to ban deer hunting outright not because of incontrovertible evidence but because of discussions he has had with the parliamentary Labour party. 
 Such matters could be discussed sensibly by the registrar and the tribunal, but the Bill is not about animal welfare. The Minister has decided that he does not like the human behaviour of people who hunt stag on Exmoor. He does not like the fact that they gallop around and chase deer, and that is why he has chosen to ban deer hunting as part of a deal with his hon. Friends in the parliamentary Labour party. 
 I challenge the Minister to take this opportunity to present incontrovertible evidence that there is no utility or that the pursuit or killing phases are for some reason so overwhelmingly cruel that the matter may not be considered by the registrar unlike the killing of foxes, which may be considered by the registrar. If he has such evidence, today is the day that he must lay it plainly on the table. He must let us consider and discuss it. If he does not do so, he exposes himself to my charge that his banning of stag hunting has nothing whatever to do with animal welfare and everything to do with human activities.

Paddy Tipping: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. It may surprise him, after his lengthy speech, to learn that I agree with some of his points. For example, he said that there should be
 no outright ban under clause 6 but that deer hunting should be considered under the registration process in part 2. Although I agree with some of his opening remarks, I disagree profoundly with the process that he suggests for resolving the matter. He is right that clause 6 is a controversial and important part of the Bill. Along with clause 8, which the Committee has had a good deal of time to discuss, clause 6 is a key part of the Bill. No one should deny that the issue is fundamental to the Committee and to the Bill.
 Another point of agreement is the hon. Gentleman's comment that deer are being considered in a unique way, in that they are not included in the registration process but that hunting of them is banned outright under clause 6. Again, he is right. 
 The hon. Gentleman argues that my right hon. Friend the Minister, in the privacy of his room—in the eyrie, as the hon. Member for North Wiltshire said in such a disparaging way—should not make the decisions by himself. I would not put it that way. I believe that my right hon. Friend has operated very openly. He has made a considerable personal investment in the Bill, and I deplore the hon. Gentleman's disparaging remarks.

James Gray: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Minister has spent an enormous amount of time on the Bill. The three days at Portcullis house and the other evidence sessions have been very useful. I certainly did not intend to disparage the Minister's general approach to the Bill. My point was simply that we do not know why he has banned stag hunting outright. He says that it is because of incontrovertible evidence, which he will not share with us. That is the aspect that I believe to be arrogant and private.

Paddy Tipping: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will respond to that, and I have in mind the kind of response that he will make.
 The hon. Gentleman's conclusion that deer hunting should not be banned outright in clause 6 has some validity, but I draw a slightly different conclusion. I, too, think that it odd that deer hunting is banned outright, but I wonder why clause 6 does not also ban fox and mink hunting. 
 My view is a simple and constitutional one. At issue is a process. I believe that the will of the House of Commons will ultimately be the test of the legislation. Along with several members of the Committee, I am concerned about part 2 because, at its broadest, it sub-contracts to a registrar decisions that parliamentarians should be taking. It leaves the argument to another day. That is the fundamental cornerstone of the Bill. 
 The Minister and his colleagues should listen carefully to the view of the House of Commons. It has been expressed clearly and transparently on many occasions for years. The House of Commons wants a ban on deer hunting. Moreover, it wants an end to the argument about the issue and a ban on foxhunting. In its present state, clause 6 should not stand part of the Bill. Under the heading ''Deer'', it states: 
''Registration under Part 2 shall not be effected in respect of the hunting of deer of any species.''
 The clause 6 that the House of Commons wants by an overwhelming majority would be headed ''Deer and fox''.

George Stevenson: Order. The hon. Gentleman will know what I am about to stay. He is entitled to make his argument about clause 6 standing part of the Bill, as it is presently drafted.

Paddy Tipping: The clause should not stand part of the Bill in its present form. I say strongly to Opposition Members, and even more strongly to my right hon. Friend the Minister, that there will be an occasion—not today or during other discussions in Committee—when Parliament and the House of Commons will have an opportunity to discuss clause 6 again, perhaps on Report. My right hon. Friend should listen to the voice of Parliament that has been expressed on several occasions. Clause 6 has little chance of emerging from the Commons process, because many colleagues agree that the clause should argue for a ban on foxhunting and deer hunting. I hope that we will have the opportunity to enable that to be done as the Bill proceeds through the House.

Edward Garnier: I shall make nine preliminary points before asking the Minister some questions. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) for being so candid with the Committee. It seems that the Government's choreography is becoming a little ragged as we move towards the end of our discussions in Committee.

John Gummer: Did my hon. and learned Friend notice that the hon. Member for Sherwood, who has just spoken, slipped rapidly from what Parliament had said to what the House of Commons had said? During our peculiar voting experience the other day, we clearly voted in favour of the retention of a second House, so what Parliament said is not what the House of Commons says. As long as this constitution allows us to have two Houses, it behoves all of us to reach a solution that is acceptable not only to the House of Commons, but to the whole of Parliament, particularly in circumstances when the majority of people do not want hunting to be banned.

Edward Garnier: What my right hon. Friend said is entirely to the point. The Prime Minister put the hon. Member for Sherwood and others in this mess. They must fight hard to ban hunting following the Prime Minister's intervention on ''Question Time'', and he put them in a further mess by upsetting them about the voting last week on the House of Lords reforms. Therefore, he has much to answer for, and I have no doubt that he will pay for that in due course.
 I want to return to my preliminary points, and then to ask the Minister some questions. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sherwood for echoing the comments of the hon. Member for West Ham, who is no longer present but who said, when we were debating clause 8, that the parliamentary Labour party timebomb on this issue is ticking and that clause 6 is in as much danger of being chewed up on the Floor of the House on Report as clause 8. 
 I shall listen with interest to what other Committee members say in this clause stand part debate; I trust that they will be as honest and candid as the hon. Member for Sherwood. I am wholly opposed to his view, although I salute his candour in expressing it, and I hope that he has respect for my view, although it is diametrically opposed to his. I, too, believe that clause 6 should not stand part of the Bill, although for different reasons. I want to explain them by making some bullet points. 
 First, the Bill proposes a ban on deer hunting but adduces no evidence for singling out the practice as unacceptable, either on the grounds of utility or suffering, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire said, although I will not rehearse his remarks. 
 As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) said last week, the deer of Exmoor belong to the community that farms and resides there and manages and cares for the herd. Hunting with hounds is a vital part of the management process and promotes the interest in and care of the deer that have led to that herd's outstanding qualities. I will not repeat the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire on the history of that. The hunting of deer with hounds is maximally favourable to the well-being of the herd as it discriminates against the old, the infirm and the diseased. We mentioned that this morning and last week. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire said that it is the only method of cull that guarantees a clean head shot, leading to instantaneous death. That must be entirely uncontroversial; I hope that nobody will suggest otherwise. 
 Therefore, it is at least as humane as stalking, which, although it is equally necessary for responsible management, always involves a risk of serious injury, followed by a slow and painful death. No such risk attaches to hunting with dogs. I like to think of myself as a reasonably experienced rifle shot. I have gone stalking in the highlands of Scotland almost every autumn since my late teens and early twenties. It is inevitable that over a range of 200 or 300 yards—hopefully less than that, and ideally under 100 yards—one cannot guarantee that one is going to shoot the animal dead. 
 The circumstances in the highlands of Scotland are entirely different from those that pertain in the west country, where using a high-powered rifle at anything more than very close range is likely to prove unsafe because one cannot tell who or what is round the other side of a bush or a corner. It is extremely dangerous to treat the use of a rifle in Somerset and Devon in the same way as in the vast expanses of the highlands of Scotland. 
 Although the quarry is chased, it is supremely adapted by evolution to run from predators. Hunting is a managed adaptation of a natural form of predation, and presents the quarry with a threat that it is instinctively able to cope with. Unlike trapping or shooting, hunting produces no immediate panic. Deer that escape the hounds are observed to be undamaged 
 and able to return to a normal life. Long chases are slow with intermittent sprints. When the quarry comes to bay, it is preparing to defend itself in another way. 
 Those who do not know about stag hunting should get out of their heads that it is a continuous lickety-split from one stage to the end of the day. There was a similar misunderstanding about foxhunting. I rather got the impression that those on the Government Benches, especially the Minister, thought that hunting started at 11o'clock and went hell for leather until 4 or 5 o'clock in the afternoon, non-stop with the hounds in full pursuit, helter-skelter, after the prey. That is no more true of foxhunting than of stag hunting, which is well worth bearing in mind when one considers what are thought to be the better arguments in favour of clause 6. 
 Coming to bay is a natural response and can be achieved only by hunting with dogs. It is one of the responses being sought. Only when a deer can be approached can it be safely and cleanly shot. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire said, the method by which deer are culled or put to death in stag hunting areas can be justified as being as humane as possible. In many respects, it is less worrisome and more humane than the disposal of livestock in an abattoir. 
 My next point is mischievous. If one extended the logic of the argument in the Bill and clause 6 in particular, it would not be long before the use of sheepdogs to round up sheep or cattle before they are taken off to the abattoir was outlawed on the same grounds as the use of hounds in the culling of deer. 
 Casualty deer—victims of road accidents or other injuries—cannot be easily found or dispatched without the use of deer hounds. Banning deer hunting will therefore lead to a serious welfare problem among deer herds. The Government may say, ''You will be allowed to use hounds to flush out injured or diseased animals'' assuming that the exemptions to hunting are not caught by clause 6. However, once deer hunting is banned, the deer hounds will go. The type of dogs required to carry out such a humane activity will not exist in a few years' time and the welfare of the herd and individual deer will be hugely compromised. 
 Those are the preliminary points that I wish to place on record, but I have some questions for the Minister and any Committee members interested in responding. I have not thought of the questions myself. They come from the owner of the Porlock estate on the Somerset and Devon border, whom I know. He has an obvious and immediate interest in clause 6. In a letter to the Minister dated 18 December 2002, he writes: 
''I am writing to ask what essential safeguards will be included in any Act of Parliament that sets out to outlaw traditional methods of managing the wild Red Deer on Exmoor. Has thought been given to requiring a complete moratorium on any shooting of Red Deer on Exmoor for a period of 10 years from the date of any Statute''
 coming into force? 
 Those questions flow from the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton. Although this may not be the most attractive argument against including clause 6 in the Bill, according to my hon. Friend, it is a fact of life; the deer are seen to be a communal asset, but that sense of community ownership will disappear once hunting is banned. Particular farm owners will want to ensure that the herd on their farms is moved on or destroyed to prevent it from damaging the grazing. They will also want to exploit the commercial value of the carcases. That argument may be difficult to present, but if my hon. Friend is to be believed—I think that he is—it is a fact of life and something with which we as legislators will have to deal before we allow clause 6 to stand part of the Bill. 
 The owner of the Porlock estate asked whether, if that were not the case, any advice had been given to the Avon and Somerset Police Authority as to how all needful garden owners on Exmoor 
''will be empowered to apply for rifle licences so that they can protect and conserve''
 their holdings. The letter continues: 
''Will this relaxation be extended to woodland managers or graziers of heather and bilberry moorland? Will it be extended to any or all farmers? If this path were to be chosen''—
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.